On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning?
this one makes utmost sense.
-- Gaby
2011/12/24 Jonathan Wakely :
> On 24 December 2011 10:50, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>>
>>> What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning?
>
> First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and
> see that I already add
On 12/24/2011 12:03 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 12/24/2011 11:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx
and see that I already added it ;-)
Oh indeed, now I remember it ;)
which reminds me, that probably, since we are mentioning new warnin
On 12/24/2011 11:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
First of all I'd check http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#cxx and
see that I already added it ;-)
Oh indeed, now I remember it ;)
Paolo.
On 24 December 2011 10:50, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>> What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning?
>
> In general this type of diagnostic issue isn't very difficult to work on.
> First, I would recommend checking if we have a Bugzil
On 12/24/2011 03:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
What do people think... is this a better non-virtual-dtor warning?
In general this type of diagnostic issue isn't very difficult to work
on. First, I would recommend checking if we have a Bugzilla already open
about it, otherwise open one, clarifying w
